48 Fla. L. Weekly D537a FULL PRO RESTORATION, a/a/o Placido Fernandez, Appellant, v. CITIZENS PROPERTY INSURANCE CORPORATION, Appellee. 3rd District. Case No. 3D21-2312. L.T. Case No. 19-20010 CC. March 15, 2023. An Appeal from the County Court for Miami-Dade County, Michael G. Barket, Judge. Counsel: Louis Law Group, PLLC, and Pierre A. Louis and Alibia […]
Articles
Attorney’s fees — Prevailing party — Entitlement — No error in denying prevailing defendant’s request for attorney’s fees — Although prior settlement agreement between the parties entitled a prevailing party to attorney’s fees in the event of further litigation, defendant was required to have stated her claim for attorney’s fees in her answers, which she failed to do — Defendant’s requests for attorney’s fees contained in her motion to dismiss and motion for summary judgment, filed more than two years apart, were insufficient to place plaintiff on notice that defendant was claiming attorney’s fees for the entire action pursuant to the settlement agreement
48 Fla. L. Weekly D594b HOPE VICKERS, Appellant, v. FAITH MALPELI and ESTATE OF LYNNE C. MALPELI, deceased, Appellees. 6th District. Case No. 6D23-281. L.T. Case No. 2015-CP-002703-0001-XX. March 17, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Collier County. Elizabeth V. Krier, Judge. Counsel: Scott A. Beatty and Iman Zekri, of Henderson, Franklin, Starnes & […]
Torts — Premises liability — Slip and fall — Transitory substance — Knowledge of dangerous condition — Summary judgment — Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of defendant — There was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether defendant had constructive knowledge of the liquid that allegedly caused plaintiff’s injury where plaintiff testified that there was a large amount of liquid, the liquid was dirty and slimy, and that plaintiff had observed footprints in the puddle that did not belong to her — A reasonable jury could credit plaintiff’s testimony and infer that the tracked footprints plaintiff observed in the large amount of dirty liquid indicated that the liquid substance was there long enough for several individuals to walk through it such that defendant should have detected it, particularly where defendant testified that they had an employee stationed in the area at all times
48 Fla. L. Weekly D583d WANDA WELCH, Appellant, v. CHLN, INC., Appellee. 5th District. Case No. 5D22-357. L.T. Case No. 05-2019-CA-010929-X. Opinion filed March 17, 2023. Appeal from the Circuit Court for Brevard County, Charles M. Holcomb, Judge. Counsel: Brian J. Lee, of Morgan & Morgan, Jacksonville, for Appellant. Robert A. Ader and Elizabeth B. […]
Torts — Limited liability companies — Breach of fiduciary duty — Damages — Additur — Inconsistent/inadequate verdicts — Attorney’s fees — Indemnification — Trial court erred in granting plaintiff’s motion for additur of $1 in nominal damages after jury found that defendant had breached his fiduciary duty to plaintiff, but awarded $0 in damages — Jury’s verdict was neither inconsistent nor inadequate — Verdict was not legally inconsistent because jury was instructed that it could, but was not required to, award nominal damages after finding defendant breached a duty that was a legal cause of damage to plaintiff, and because the jury returned a verdict consistent with those unobjected-to jury instructions and consistent with the directions provided on the verdict form — Additionally, given the unobjected-to jury instruction that authorized the jury to award $0 in nominal damages, the jury’s award of zero damages cannot be challenged as inadequate — Because the trial court must reinstate the original $0 verdict, trial court’s order denying defendant’s motion for judgment in accordance with motion for directed verdict is reversed because the return of a proper verdict of $0 in damages means plaintiff failed to prove damages, an essential element of its breach of fiduciary duty claim — Defendant was not entitled to be indemnified by plaintiff for his attorney’s fees under the terms of plaintiff’s operating agreement — Under the relevant statutory scheme, indemnification was available to defendant only if underlying claim did not arise from his breach of fiduciary duties to plaintiff — Plaintiff needed to prove only that defendant breached his duty of loyalty or duty of care, and jury expressly found that defendant had — Trial court erred in relying on provision in operating agreement where provision was expressly prohibited by section 605.0105(3) — Plain language of statute mandates that a manager who violates his duty of loyalty or duty of care is precluded from indemnification, and such statutory preclusion cannot be altered, modified or waived by the operating agreement
48 Fla. L. Weekly D605a AMERICAN SALES AND MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION LLC d/b/a Eulen America, Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. LUIS RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ, Appellee/Cross-Appellant. 3rd District. Case No. 3D20-563. L.T. Case No. 14-17706. March 22, 2023. An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, William Thomas, Judge. Counsel: Greenberg Traurig, P.A., and Joseph Mamounas and Jay A. Yagoda, […]
Rules of Civil Procedure — Amendment — Jury — Request to review testimony — Transcripts — Readback or playback of testimony
48 Fla. L. Weekly S51a IN RE: AMENDMENTS TO FLORIDA RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1.453. Supreme Court of Florida. Case No. SC2022-0803. March 30, 2023. Original Proceeding — Florida Rules of Civil Procedure. Counsel: Landis V. Curry III, Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Jason Paul Stearns, Past Chair, Civil Procedure Rules Committee, Tampa, Joshua […]